Thursday, August 09, 2007

Other Items

Six antiwar demonstrators were arrested Wednesday at the Garden Grove office of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Santa Ana) after camping there overnight and telling her they wouldn't leave unless she promised not to approve more funding for the war in Iraq.Most of the protesters are members of the group Military Families Speak Out, and some have relatives in the armed forces. They entered the office about 7 p.m. Tuesday during an open house. They sat on the floor in the lobby and refused to leave unless the congresswoman made the statement they wanted. Sanchez, who opposes the war, refused.[. . .]Tuesday night Sanchez said she could not support the protesters because the $145 billion in Iraq war funding was in the same bill that would provide money to build the C-17 aircraft in California."I never voted for this war," she said. But "I'm not going to vote against $2.1 billion for C-17 production, which is in California. That is just not going to happen."

The above is from Jennifer Delson's "6 war protesters arrested at Democratic lawmaker's O.C. office" (Los Angeles Times) and embracing greed over a $2.1 billion contract is voting for the illegal war. Sanchez wants the big bucks from War Toys in her district so she'll support $145 billion in funding for the illegal war. That is blood money. And if all members of Congress can get some pork in each war funding bill, maybe the illegal war can go on and on forever. Bucks come before moralities and legalities to Sanchez, she made that very clear.

Maybe the protest will send a message to Sanchez? Like the way she was sent a message when she ran as a Republican and lost so she decided she was a Democrat? Sanchez not only sits on the Armed Service Committee (how do you think she rolled that $2.1 billion pork her own way), she votes for the illegal war repeatedly. She likes to point out that in 2002 she voted against the authorization (which required UN backing that was never received) but that vote is meaningless when her record is one of voting to fund the illegal war over and over and over.

In other let's tell the truth news, Anthony Cordesman is NOT "a consistent critic of the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq" if that is supposed to read (as it will to many) as Cordesman is against the illegal war. Senator Crazy's former advisor has been on board with the illegal war from the beginning. In 2002, he was putting forward the 'threat' Iraq was and arguing that they had WMD. Now we know they didn't but for some reason WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING Cordesman is suddenly a reliable voice to be profiled. Frontline puffed and fluffed Cordesman in 2006, allowing him to pontificate in the extreme and never pointing out that he had maintained Iraq had WMD -- not even when he declared, "There was, I think, a far more serious view of the Iraqi conventional forces and the risk of Iraq using weapons of mass discussion than was justified at the time, even with the intelligence mistakes we were making."Justified at the time? Frontline never pointed out that Cordesman was one of the ones justifying that false argument. Never asked him a difficult or uncomfortable question. Never told viewers, "Cordesman advanced the now disproven lie that Iraq had WMD and advocated the illegal war from the start." He's not an analyst, he's an activist. He's one who was grossly mistaken. But the activists who call for war (Samantha Power) always get to be billed as impartial analysts in the mainstream media and the ones who call for peace aren't to be quoted, aren't to be trusted, even when they're right.

So today he shows up on the pages of the Washington Post with his turkey waddle chins and his usual lies and wants the world to know that there's still a 'win' possible. At this late date, facing reality is probably too difficult for him. It would mean admitting that the blood of so many Iraqis, Americans, British and other people were on his hands.

He exists to justify his own actions and statements (which he's never called out on) and he exists to sell the lie (over and over) that an illegal war can have a 'win.'

Until the US leaves Iraq, he'll be trotted out by various outlets who refused to do their job before the illegal war because he provides comfort and they can say "He still thinks there's a 'win'!" Yes, and he though Iraq had WMD as well. And he can whine about economic planning (and pretend there was no plan when what happens today is exactly because there was a plan) but the reality was he wasn't making economic noises before the illegal war, he was screaming for war. With claims that have long been disproven. After US forces leave, he'll crawl under the rock he should be under right now for a brief spell and then re-emerge with his questionable image intact as he argues for more illegal war.

In America, the top one-tenth of one percent of earners makes about the same money per year collectively as the millions of Americans in the bottom fifty percent combined. This is putting a tight squeeze on the middle class, while leaving millions of others in the cold. On Friday, August 10 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), David Brancaccio talks with Pulitzer prize-winning financial reporter David Cay Johnston, as well as author and advocate Beth Shuman about the state of our country's vast income divide and how it's hurting those just trying to make ends meet.The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will feature book excerpts from both authors and stories of low-wage earners fighting for income equality.

David Cay Johnston is a reporter for the New York Times. NOW with David Brancaccio begins airing on most PBS stations Friday evenings. Check your local listings.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.